But why does that bother you? Who cares if someone has a slow connection, or even no connection? The world got along just fine (actually, from evidence, a lot better) without everyone having an instant connection to everyone else.
Bullshit. I can buy as many "counterfeit" goods I want and no one can say a damn thing about it. Suppose I think the "Rilex" is actually a better watch than the real deal, I can certainly buy one. Even the definition of "counterfeit" is entirely determined by who wants to sue to protect their copyright, etc. (aside from counterfeit money), but that is strictly between the "original" manufacturer and whoever is making and/or selling the fakes, not the buyers.
Once I buy something physical, unless it was stolen, it is mine and I can do whatever I damn well please with it, as long as I don't misrepresent it.
I don't know about a dishwasher but we have done a TON of old Mac keyboards in tap water with no problems at all. Usually it was to get Coke (or the programmers favorite, Lady Lee Cola, 79 cents for a two-liter bottle at Lucky) out of it, but a whole lot of other stuff came out, too. Never had an issue.
If I was going to do something like this I wouldn't use a dishwasher. I would use lukewarm tapwater and a small amount of something like Liquid Cheer and just soak it for an hour or so with occasional agitation, followed by very extensive rinsing with lukewarm tap water. If you want to be really careful, finish with distilled water as the final rinse. Shake out as much water as you can, then let it dry for a week or two. No guarantees, of course.
Not only that, he has absolutely no fucking idea what he's taking pictures of. He sees something go over, maybe piddles around on the internet and takes a stab (based on the deluded "satellite spotters" who actually think they know what's going on) at what it might be, and simply asserts that it's some secret program that has a cool name.
Oh, of course, they are going to select what they think are the cleanest possible samples for the chemical analysis, and they already know how to subtract out the engine residue (mostly ammonia but also raw hydrazine) from the results. They have thought of these sorts of things (and did on Viking, as well).
Yes. The chances of destroying life that can withstand extremely high radiation levels, a virtual vacuum, and living in frozen C02 is unlikely to be bothered by a little bit of ammonia steam for a few seconds. Additionally the design intentionally spreads the plume over a wide area to lower the local heating, pressure, or contamination effects. Melting ice isn't likely given the small heat input and short duration, but it's not clear that melting a little bit of ice for a few seconds before it refreezes actually hurts anything much.
"A lot of *people pretending to be intelligent* believe that humanity + earth is a lot cause. "
There, fixed that for you!
Brett
Re:Trucking technology is extremely sophisticated
on
Big Rigs Go High Tech
·
· Score: 1
It's regenerative braking, not dynamic breaking. If you are feeding back the power from braking, the diesel generator load is greatly reduced and the throttle setting is greatly reduced, saving fuel. Excess returned power is shunted into resistors and shed as heat. Full hybrid locomotives are nearing operation, see http://ge.ecomagination.com/site/products/hybr.html
Brett
Trucking technology is extremely sophisticated
on
Big Rigs Go High Tech
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The summary underestimates the technology development in the trucking industry. Since at least the early 70's oil crisis, no effort has been spared to wheedle out ever last cent per lb-mile. The engine controls are exceptionally sophisticated and the scheduling/routing software is similarly complex. This is not a bunch of stereotypical yokels. Most people here would go broke if they tried to do it.
While we are at it, a lot of people might be surprised how sophisticated trains and train operations are - modern locomotives were the prototypes of Prius' and othe hybrids, complete with regenerative braking.
Agreed, 2001 was hyper-realistic. But Star Wars had that same quality in a infinitely more elaborate and complex scenes. 2001 was intentionally pedestrian because, when you get right down to is, real life is tedious. Star Wars effects were used to *maximum impact*. And needless to say, a whole lot more people saw Star Wars than saw or cared about 2001 (which was actually a good underlying story with exceptionally poor storytelling, IMO). The same age group I was talking about, by the way, had probably never seen 2001.
Kids today (there I go, gonna be shooing kids off the lawn soon...) are so used to the quality of effects that it has virtually no impact on them as an effect. Maybe that's good, and maybe that's bad, but it's nothing out of the ordinary.
Off-topic, the effect in the new Battlestar Galactica are as plausible as they could be. Until I saw the pilot, I really hadn't fully appreciated how bogus it seems to have spaceships make whooshing or throbbing sounds. I obviously knew it was phony, but hearing it properly for BSG was like hitting you in the face.
Indeed. It seems as if there is a narrow range of ages that found the original spellbinding, and I was just a few years too old. I recall seeing in in the theater when it came out and, naturally being blown away by the special effects. The audience first gasped and then cheered in the opening sequence where the ship flies overhead. But it was a fairly average movie otherwise, utterly predictable, and is still even watching it now. But guys a few years younger - sat, 10-14 years old - were absolutely transfixed and immediately started memorizing every detail. I was 17 and drove my own car to see it.
From what I consider an objective standpoint, btw, the prequels were every bit as good story and acting-wise as the originals. Everybody hates Jar-Jar but I don't see the various cutesy robots and critters in the originals to be a lot better, and the Ewoks beat the universe part was, is, and always will be embarrassing.
NASA *doesn't build anything*. Never have built anything significant. virtually everything launched into has been built by contractors. Mercury/Gemini = McDonnell, Apollo CSM = North American, Apollo LM = Grumman, S1C = Chrysler, SII = North American Seal Beach, Voyager = TRW, MCO/MRO/MO/MPL = Lockheed, etc.
It doesn't "further back" the higher-court ruling, the judge is merely pointing out that he/she made a mistake by not applying the higher-court ruling. A lower court can't add weight to a higher court precedent by merely citing it.
FORTRAN dates back to 57 if you were using IBM machines. It didn't really make it to mainstream use until 62-63 with release of FORTRAN IV. It's a little unclear but the usage in the case I am describing appears to have been on Univac machines, and ALGOL was available for Univac before FORTRAN.
Of course the same algorithms were previously coded in assembly for whatever machine they happened to have and later ported to high-level languages, but I don't think that qualifies for "the same code". If it does that pushes the same algorithms back to 1955 or so.
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit. Blame the people doing it.
Brett
Oh, I'm pretty sure that for anyone here to take advantage of said bounty, they will end up needing a computer.
Brett
But why does that bother you? Who cares if someone has a slow connection, or even no connection? The world got along just fine (actually, from evidence, a lot better) without everyone having an instant connection to everyone else.
And get off my lawn!
Brett
Bullshit. I can buy as many "counterfeit" goods I want and no one can say a damn thing about it. Suppose I think the "Rilex" is actually a better watch than the real deal, I can certainly buy one. Even the definition of "counterfeit" is entirely determined by who wants to sue to protect their copyright, etc. (aside from counterfeit money), but that is strictly between the "original" manufacturer and whoever is making and/or selling the fakes, not the buyers.
Once I buy something physical, unless it was stolen, it is mine and I can do whatever I damn well please with it, as long as I don't misrepresent it.
Brett
My God, ChimpyMcBushitler was in ripping up the constitution even when he was 23!!! Is there no limit to his evil?
Brett
I was going to ask the same question (in incredulous tone) - "keyboard enthusiast"?
Brett
I don't know about a dishwasher but we have done a TON of old Mac keyboards in tap water with no problems at all. Usually it was to get Coke (or the programmers favorite, Lady Lee Cola, 79 cents for a two-liter bottle at Lucky) out of it, but a whole lot of other stuff came out, too. Never had an issue.
If I was going to do something like this I wouldn't use a dishwasher. I would use lukewarm tapwater and a small amount of something like Liquid Cheer and just soak it for an hour or so with occasional agitation, followed by very extensive rinsing with lukewarm tap water. If you want to be really careful, finish with distilled water as the final rinse. Shake out as much water as you can, then let it dry for a week or two. No guarantees, of course.
Brett
Not only that, he has absolutely no fucking idea what he's taking pictures of. He sees something go over, maybe piddles around on the internet and takes a stab (based on the deluded "satellite spotters" who actually think they know what's going on) at what it might be, and simply asserts that it's some secret program that has a cool name.
Brett
Just be thankful it's not "Deutchland Uber Alles".
Brett
p.s. do your masters in Belgium still allow you to have a monarchy?
"shady things" ? What in the world are you talking about?
Brett
We're whalers on the moon
We carry a harpoon
But their ain't no whales so we tell tall tales
And sing this whaling tune
Brett
That the Titanic was an afterthought to the submarine search has been well-known for many years.
Brett
Oh, of course, they are going to select what they think are the cleanest possible samples for the chemical analysis, and they already know how to subtract out the engine residue (mostly ammonia but also raw hydrazine) from the results. They have thought of these sorts of things (and did on Viking, as well).
Brett
Yes. The chances of destroying life that can withstand extremely high radiation levels, a virtual vacuum, and living in frozen C02 is unlikely to be bothered by a little bit of ammonia steam for a few seconds. Additionally the design intentionally spreads the plume over a wide area to lower the local heating, pressure, or contamination effects. Melting ice isn't likely given the small heat input and short duration, but it's not clear that melting a little bit of ice for a few seconds before it refreezes actually hurts anything much.
Brett
"A lot of *people pretending to be intelligent* believe that humanity + earth is a lot cause. "
There, fixed that for you!
Brett
It's regenerative braking, not dynamic breaking. If you are feeding back the power from braking, the diesel generator load is greatly reduced and the throttle setting is greatly reduced, saving fuel. Excess returned power is shunted into resistors and shed as heat. Full hybrid locomotives are nearing operation, see http://ge.ecomagination.com/site/products/hybr.html
Brett
The summary underestimates the technology development in the trucking industry. Since at least the early 70's oil crisis, no effort has been spared to wheedle out ever last cent per lb-mile. The engine controls are exceptionally sophisticated and the scheduling/routing software is similarly complex. This is not a bunch of stereotypical yokels. Most people here would go broke if they tried to do it.
While we are at it, a lot of people might be surprised how sophisticated trains and train operations are - modern locomotives were the prototypes of Prius' and othe hybrids, complete with regenerative braking.
Brett
Agreed, 2001 was hyper-realistic. But Star Wars had that same quality in a infinitely more elaborate and complex scenes. 2001 was intentionally pedestrian because, when you get right down to is, real life is tedious. Star Wars effects were used to *maximum impact*. And needless to say, a whole lot more people saw Star Wars than saw or cared about 2001 (which was actually a good underlying story with exceptionally poor storytelling, IMO). The same age group I was talking about, by the way, had probably never seen 2001.
Kids today (there I go, gonna be shooing kids off the lawn soon...) are so used to the quality of effects that it has virtually no impact on them as an effect. Maybe that's good, and maybe that's bad, but it's nothing out of the ordinary.
Off-topic, the effect in the new Battlestar Galactica are as plausible as they could be. Until I saw the pilot, I really hadn't fully appreciated how bogus it seems to have spaceships make whooshing or throbbing sounds. I obviously knew it was phony, but hearing it properly for BSG was like hitting you in the face.
Brett
Indeed. It seems as if there is a narrow range of ages that found the original spellbinding, and I was just a few years too old. I recall seeing in in the theater when it came out and, naturally being blown away by the special effects. The audience first gasped and then cheered in the opening sequence where the ship flies overhead. But it was a fairly average movie otherwise, utterly predictable, and is still even watching it now. But guys a few years younger - sat, 10-14 years old - were absolutely transfixed and immediately started memorizing every detail. I was 17 and drove my own car to see it.
From what I consider an objective standpoint, btw, the prequels were every bit as good story and acting-wise as the originals. Everybody hates Jar-Jar but I don't see the various cutesy robots and critters in the originals to be a lot better, and the Ewoks beat the universe part was, is, and always will be embarrassing.
Brett
This must be a Windoze-only issue - I can recall maybe 2-3 updates to iTunes for Mac and they are not at all onerous.
Brett
Sorry - S1C was Boeing, Chrysler subcontracted for the tanks.
Brett
NASA *doesn't build anything*. Never have built anything significant. virtually everything launched into has been built by contractors. Mercury/Gemini = McDonnell, Apollo CSM = North American, Apollo LM = Grumman, S1C = Chrysler, SII = North American Seal Beach, Voyager = TRW, MCO/MRO/MO/MPL = Lockheed, etc.
Brett
It doesn't "further back" the higher-court ruling, the judge is merely pointing out that he/she made a mistake by not applying the higher-court ruling. A lower court can't add weight to a higher court precedent by merely citing it.
Brett
The next time they create "fake but accurate" documents, they will be far more plausible!
Brett
FORTRAN dates back to 57 if you were using IBM machines. It didn't really make it to mainstream use until 62-63 with release of FORTRAN IV. It's a little unclear but the usage in the case I am describing appears to have been on Univac machines, and ALGOL was available for Univac before FORTRAN.
Of course the same algorithms were previously coded in assembly for whatever machine they happened to have and later ported to high-level languages, but I don't think that qualifies for "the same code". If it does that pushes the same algorithms back to 1955 or so.
Brett